I understand that but why is it that if a post has load of voters who loved the post then the one with most power decided they dont why should 1 vote over rule 100s of votes?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I understand that but why is it that if a post has load of voters who loved the post then the one with most power decided they dont why should 1 vote over rule 100s of votes?
Regarding 1 vote over 100s , I agree it is not fair, but this is how the system works now. Yesterday I addressed this issue in my comment in this article https://steemit.com/roadmap2018/@steemitblog/steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested#@hoodaim/re-steemitblog-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested-20171117t205926649z
My personal opinion is that money that are given to author should be one thing, reputation should totally changed and have more impact so the vote of minnows without money would be worth something.
However, we have what we have now and can only propose new solutions.
P.S. I have not seen many cases where 1 whale downvoted 100s of votes, usually it was the case where 1 whale downvotes another whale and actually those small votes stay at place.
Because its a stakeweighted system where a vote depending on the amount of SP they hold is worth more. On Reddit for instance it doesn't matter how much comment or link karma you have, 1 vote is still 1 vote. This leaves abuse to botvoting posts onto the top of trending or hot even if the content is garbage because someone has bought those votes. Here bigger users can remove some attention and rewards from the posts if they so see fit, while sacrificing curation rewards in the meantime.
Well, actually I wrote a post today on this topic, you might check it out and comment what you think. Generally speaking, I think that ranking algorithm should be more sophisticated and depend on many facts.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@hoodaim/conflict-of-interests-upvotes-vs-flagging-is-there-a-solution